Anti-population growth is anti-black and anti-minority

The New York Times had a recent article about reducing carbon by curbing population.

It is projected that the world is expected to add about 1.3 billion people in Africa by 2050 and 700 million in Asia from the 2014 level of 7.3 billion. [250 million more in latin america and 80 million in North America]

More recent census projections are for Africa to have 2.7 billion in 2050. This would be an increase of 1.65 billion from current levels.

Many groups ask for reduced global population growth. The expected population growth is over 50% in Africa. Africa is mostly a black population. The claimed intent is not supposed to be about being anti-black. But the difference of having 800 million fewer black people in 2050 can be construed as anti-black. Just as getting the one-child policy in China and having 400 million fewer Chinese could be construed as an anti-Chinese policy. Clearly the one-child policy was a Chinese government action. Population growth clearly is coming from particular races.

It is just statistical facts. The end results and goals have clear racial facts.

Many “population environmentalists” are just anti-people. It does not matter what race to them. Population Matters thinks Europe should have half of its current population and North America should have 152 million less people.

The solutions that are promoted are $4 billion a year for more contraceptives to try to prevent 54 million unintended pregnancies.

The other part is more education for women because more educated women have fewer children.

This is to avoid the need for 30% more production of food and water or 30% gain in efficiency over 35 years if all population growth were avoided or 15% if half of the growth were avoided.

The argument presented is spun as anti-climate change.

If fertility in sub-Saharan Africa slowed more rapidly than projected — declining to 2.1 children per woman in 2050 from 5.4 today — feeding the most undernourished region in the world would be a lot easier. And sparing African forests and woodlands from even greater deforestation would substantially reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere

Other choices – Boosting agriculture and reducing carbon production through other means

The other alternative is to boost investments in agriculture. Total average annual net investment in developing country agriculture required to deliver the necessary production increases would amount to USD 83 billion. The global gap in what is required vis-à-vis current investment levels can be illustrated by comparing the required annual gross investment of US$209 billion (which includes the cost of renewing depreciating investments) with the result of a separate study that estimated that developing countries on average invested USD 142 billion (USD of 2009) annually in agriculture over the past decade. The required increase is thus about 50 percent.

between 4800 and 6200 square miles of rainforest are cut down and burned every year to make way for agriculture in each region where slash and burn is practiced. Africa uses slash and burn agriculture. From 1850 to 1990, deforestation worldwide released 122 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, with the current rate being between 1.6 billion metric tons per year (Skole et al. 1998). In comparison, all of the fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) burnt during a year release about 6 billion tons per year.”

Eliminating kerosene for lighting and cooking and eliminating biofuel and coal for cooking would also contribute to reducing carbon.

Nuclear reactors and renewable power could be built up to provide the infrastructure for development while avoiding carbon.

Background on Adapting to higher populations

Growing populations are often presented as a race where we do not have the technological means to keep up. It is believed the first practical greenhouse was built by French botanist, Jules Charles, in 1599 in Leiden, Holland. Ancient greenhouses might have existed in Pompeii. Greenhouses can boost yield by 6-12 times for regular greenhouses and 20-30 times for “advanced greenhouses”.

About $65 million for greenhouses that cover a square kilometer for the average deployed systems.
The lower cost Pennstate system would be about $20 million to cover a square kilometer.

So let us say $65 trillion for 1 million square kilometers. This would be nearly double the agricultural yield. Over years it would be less than 2% of GDP. If volume production and economies of scale could lower the cost the more “advanced greenhouses” were scaled that can achieve 20-30 times the yield of regular land then either the yield could be increased or less land could be used. This is before considering vertical farming to apply skyscraper technology to boost the amount of land. Similar simple approaches can be used to boost water and energy level

Fertilizing the ocean with 120 tons of iron sulphate has produced record levels of salmon 2 years later.

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks

Subscribe on Google News